The picture covers up the article! Can anyone fix it?

This article states: "It is the cornerstone...", but [1] states "In the Eastern corner about 5 feet above ground the Hajar el Aswad (the blackstone) is fixed into the wall." Can anyone confirm which is true, preferably from personal experience?

This photograph shows how it is built into the cornerstone. —No-One Jones 04:52, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"only god that the Arabs were allowed to worship" deleted. This black stone is not god and not all arabs are muslim and not all muslims are arab. FWBOarticle 02:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) (And it is not worshipped)

=

The article states: "The Stone is covered by the Black Cloth, or Kiswa. This word may be derived from SWA (meaning Self, Sanskrit), or SVH (Shiva)."

Any derivation of Kiswa from Sanskrit [or any other form of Indo-Aryan] is as unlikely as it could possibly be.

any pre islam information?

Where's the information about the Black Stone prior the Muhammad? Pilgrims would travel for miles to worship it centuries before Islam was created and Muhammad incorporated it into the religion.

Cover of the black stone

I read that there is a golden cover of the black stone in the topkapi museum in Istanbul, Turkey.

See [2] Image: [3] The golden cover displayed was once the cover of the Hacer-ül Esved stone, the black stone which “fell from heaven” within the Kaaba.

Does anyone know how it came there? Could it have something to do with the Qarmatians that took it for 22 years?

I don't know, but Mecca was governed from Istanbul for 400 years (1517-1916) as part of the Ottoman Empire. So it probably was brought to 'the capital' during that time, after it had been replaced by a new one. Prater 17:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Damage

So it's damaged by Muhammad and put back together by him? --Menchi 05:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this seems unlikely. I've never heard this before... Muhammad always showed respect for the black stone when he visited the Kaaba. (He would salute it with his staff.) As far as I know, the cause of the damage is unknown. Prater 16:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The stone was damaged by an Ismaili sect, the Qarmatians, when they sacked Mecca and carried off the stone. I've corrected the article, and also removed a lot of duplicate info.

Information re the Hajj, the Kiswah, and other matters doesn't belong in this article. We should link to those articles. Zora 22:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact there is a tradition about previous damage to the Black Stone: in a "pre-revelation" flood the Ka'aba was damaged and rebuilt but the main clans of the Quraish could not agree as to which one would have the honour of replacing the stone. After some discussion, Muhammed was asked to judge between the competing claims and came up with the solution that the stone would be placed on a sheet of cloth and representatives from each of the clans would participate in lifting the stone back into place. This is a "pious tradition" to underline the general acceptance in Mecca of Muhammed's "laqba" or nickname "Al-Amin" - the faithful/trustworthy one - prior to the revelation. The origin of the laqba is reputed to be Muhammed's first wife (and employer) Khadija who originally hired him to oversee her trading caravans. If memory serves, there is a version of this tradition in Martin Lings' book on the life of the prophet. I'll do some research and edit unless there is a major objection. Wildbe 3 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)

If we're putting in pious traditions about the Kaaba, sure, why not? Allow me also to call your attention to an article that I just now started, which needs lots of work: Islam and veneration for Muhammad. That may not be the best title (it could be changed), but Muslim editors keep inserting "pious traditions" in various articles and it seemed as if there should be a place to move them rather than delete them. This could be useful info for someone trying to find out about popular culture in Muslim-majority countries. Zora 3 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

OK I see your point - that's why I didn't edit directly ;) In addition to the fact that I'm still quite a "newbie" and (sigh) my field of interest is a rather controversial one judging from the edit wars that go on. Wildbe 3 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)

No no no no ... I didn't mean "don't add it here". We've got folk traditions here already, so why not add this one too? I'm just saying that you could ALSO add it to the other article I mentioned. You probably also know other traditions re Muhammad -- the ones that we couldn't fit in the regular Muhammad article, because they're not accepted by Western scholars OR by the careful Muslim scholars. The hadith that aren't sahih <g>. Sorry if I was unclear. It's late here in Honolulu, I'm upset from dealing with various fug-headed editors (GRRRRR!), and I'm probably not expressing myself well. Zora 3 July 2005 12:12 (UTC)

Ah I see. Don't worry I didn't take your post the wrong way and I do understand your point about pious traditions - there is a difference between an encylopedia and hagiography. In any case I need to check my sources first before fiddling around with the text. One point I think worth making in the article is the common misconception that the Black Stone is the focus for Muslims while praying - the point being that when the Qarmatians "borrowed" the thing the Qibla didn't go walkabout at the same time but stayed where it was. BTW there is another stone set in Ka'aba as well - a red(dish) one at 180 degrees to the Black Stone set about the same height. I can't see any reference to it in the Ka'aba related articles.Wildbe 3 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)

Anon editor's additions

An anon editor added more traditions re the Black Stone, phrased as if all Muslims believed them. I worked them into the presentation, used English rather than Arabic, and tried to remain neutral between various Muslim beliefs about the Black Stone. Zora 18:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]